Health

Toddlers and screens: more reasons to be fearful

The first UK government guidance on young children’s use of tablets, smartphones and other screens, expected in April, cannot come soon enough. The laissez-faire approach to the boom in social media, handheld devices and other digital technology was arguably nowhere less suitable than when such machines were placed in front of babies. The Department for Education’s ongoing Children of the 2020s study has found that 98% of two-year-olds watch screens on a typical day for more than two hours. Those who spent the most time had smaller vocabularies, and were twice as likely as other children to show signs of emotional and behavioural difficulties.

Correlation must not be mistaken for causation. This is still a relatively new area of research, and much remains uncertain. But the findings of a recent survey by the charity Kindred Squared, combined with observations by teachers, are highly concerning. Answers from 1,000 primary-school staff revealed that 37% of four-year-olds arrived without basic life skills such as dressing and eating in 2025 – up from 33% two years earlier.

Some of these may have additional needs. And there is no suggestion from the charity that screens are the only issue. Stresses caused by the high cost of living, cuts to local early years services and other factors affect the quality of the youngest children’s lives. But many teachers, along with one of their unions, the NASUWT, believe that the impact of screens must be addressed, with parents as well as children encouraged to prioritise books and bricks over swipes and clicks.

The World Health Organization recommends that children under two should not use screens at all. But even if such prohibitions are unlikely to be heeded by the majority, ministers could be more ambitious in making the case for a precautionary approach. The importance of early speech, communication and emotional development should be clearly explained, and parents given support when they need it.

Since global outrage was sparked earlier this month by nudification on Grok, and the ease with which such images could be shared on X, the debate around regulation has dramatically shifted. Over recent days, Kemi Badenoch has thrown her party’s weight behind an age limit of 16 for social media apps, following Australia’s example. With a number of Labour MPs sympathetic, the government is under pressure to agree.

Those pushing for tougher rules are right that existing regulations are full of holes. Age verification should have been introduced sooner. Addictive features should never have been allowed on children’s accounts. But in the rush to gain political advantage from the current spike in concern, there is a risk of issues becoming confused. When considering screens and preschool children, a key question is what other activities (books, toys, ballgames) are being replaced, and why this matters. Weighing the impact of social media and smartphones on teenagers involves different calculations. Nudification apps are a distinct problem. It could be argued that the new focus on under-16s risks distracting attention from the more general danger posed by sexually explicit AI-generated material.

Ofcom’s prompt response to the Grok/X nudification outcry was welcome. Politicians and campaigners may be right that under-16s’ social media use should be restricted. Warnings about screens and toddlers should be heeded. The wider message of the past few weeks is that democratic oversight of the tech industry needs to accelerate.

The Guardian

Health

Novartis: Rare muscle disease drug shows early promise

Novartis (NOVN.S), opens new tab said on Thursday an experimental drug, which it acquired as part of its $12 billion takeover of ‌Avidity, showed promise in an early-to-mid-stage study in patients with a type of genetic muscle disorder characterized by slowly progressive muscle weakness.

The Swiss ⁠drugmaker said the drug, known as del-brax, lowered two blood markers linked to the disease and showed reduced signs of muscle damage in patients with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy.
Novartis said the drug shows potential to become the first disease-modifying ‌treatment ⁠for FSHD, which can cause weakness in the face, shoulders, arms and other muscles.
The company estimates it affects about 45,000 to ⁠87,000 people in the U.S. and EU.
The drug’s safety profile was consistent with previous ⁠results, the company said.
Novartis plans to discuss the data with health regulators ⁠around the world, while a late-stage study of the drug is currently enrolling patients.

The Thomson Reuters

Health

Obesity drug shows promise in reducing belly and liver fat

Boehringer Ingelheim said on Sunday its experimental obesity drug cut visceral and liver fat while minimizing loss of lean mass in ‌a late-stage study, data showed, bolstering its case for benefits beyond weight loss as competition in obesity drugs intensifies.

The drug, survodutide, was licensed from Denmark’s Zealand Pharma (ZELA.CO), opens new tab. An injectable that mimics the proteins GLP-1 and glucagon to create a feeling of fullness, its weight-loss trial results were announced in April, showing patients lost an average of 16.6% over 76 weeks.

Analysis of a group of patients who had MRI measurements at the start and end of a 76-week trial showed that survodutide reduced harmful ⁠abdominal fat by up to 34% and liver fat by up to 63.1% from the baseline, Boehringer said.

Analysts have said the weight-loss numbers were broadly comparable to existing GLP-1 injections from Novo Nordisk (NOVOb.CO), opens new tab and Eli Lilly (LLY.N), opens new tab and below newer rivals in development, and that the company needed to differentiate the drug’s benefits.

Lean mass accounted for no more than 10.8% of the change in body composition at the highest dose of 6 milligrams, suggesting the weight loss was driven mainly by fat reduction.

The drug’s effect on liver-fat reduction and preservation of lean mass are central to whether it will be able to stand out commercially, alongside tolerability and how long patients stay on the drug. Detailed data from the study could help Boehringer make a ‌stronger case ⁠that survodutide should be judged not only by pounds lost but by where weight is lost.

“We believe survodutide will become an important new option at the intersection of obesity and liver disease, two conditions that are deeply connected but rarely addressed together,” said Boehringer executive Shashank Deshpande, who leads the company’s human medicines business.

Boehringer acquired the rights in 2011 to solely develop and commercialise survodutide from Zealand, which is ⁠entitled to royalty payments on global revenue.

PATIENTS WITH LIVER DISEASE BENEFIT

In a separate late-stage study of overweight or obese patients with a fatty liver disease called MASLD, survodutide met both its main goals.

After 48 weeks, up to 84.2% of patients on the drug showed ⁠a liver fat reduction of at least 30%, compared with 24.3% for those on placebo. Patients on survodutide also lost up to 12.2% of their body weight, versus 1% for placebo.

In 61% of the patients the drug helped achieve liver fat ⁠normalization, or a liver fat content below 5%, compared with 5.7% on placebo.

U.S. biotech Altimmune (ALT.O), opens new tab is also developing a drug that targets both the appetite-suppressing gut hormone, GLP-1, and glucagon.

Survodutide is also being tested in other late-stage studies, including for patients with fatty liver disease and fibrosis.

REUTERS

Health

Millions with breast cancer could safely skip chemotherapy

Millions of people with breast cancer could safely avoid chemotherapy as scientists have developed a DNA test that can distinguish between patients who are likely to benefit from the treatment and those who are not, according to trial results.

The international study found that more than two-thirds of its participants could be spared the side of effects of chemotherapy and treated with hormone therapy alone.

Chemotherapy can cause fatigue, nausea, hair loss, a weakened immune system and fertility issues.

The study, led by University College London (UCL), involved more than 4,000 newly diagnosed patients over the age of 40 in the UK, Norway, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Thailand.

Scientists used a gene test called Prosigna to measure the activity of 50 genes involved in breast cancer growth and calculate a patient’s risk of the disease returning.

Those who received a low score – two-thirds of the group – were not treated through chemotherapy. The five-year survival rate of their group was 93.7%, compared with a 94.9% rate among patients who received chemotherapy as part of their care.

The primary treatment for breast cancer is usually surgery to remove tumours. Chemotherapy is often recommended afterwards to diminish the risk of return.

It is also regularly offered to people with early-stage breast cancer that has spread to the nearby lymph nodes.

Clinicians are concerned the treatment provides little benefit to those with the most common type of breast cancer, UCL said.

The university said more than 5,000 NHS patients a year could avoid chemotherapy as a result of the trial.

Karen Bonham, from Cardiff, took part in the trial and said the results are an “immense relief” and feel “like Christmas”.

The 64-year-old avoided chemotherapy thanks to the Prosigna test and has instead received radiotherapy and hormone therapy over eight years.

“Cancer diagnosis and treatment can be shocking,” she said.

“It certainly propels you into a world of uncertainty. Life priorities realign – you simply want to survive.”

The findings of the study will be presented at the world’s largest cancer conference, the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s annual meeting, in Chicago, United States, on Saturday.

Professor David Miles, a leading cancer specialist, described the findings as “practice-changing”.

“We can now confidently predict many patients will get no benefit at all, and therefore there’s no need for them to have the chemotherapy,” he told BBC’s Newshour.

He added that the test would allow doctors to “confidently define a large population of women who simply aren’t going to benefit and don’t need to go through all that unpleasantness for no benefit at all.”

“We used to give chemotherapy to 100 women to benefit 10, knowing that 90 didn’t need it,” he said.

Tanya Hutson, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2022 and had chemotherapy as part of her treatment, called the new DNA test “absolutely amazing”.

“It just proves what happens when money is put into research,” she said, adding that chemotherapy had been “brutal”.

“For all these people out there who don’t need it but are still getting it – it’s an absolute game changer.”

It is not known whether the findings apply to people under the age of 40, with a result still several years away, according to UCL.

BBC